Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization for Patients With Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes Treated With Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world studies of lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) are limited. We evaluated treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with LR-MDS treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with LR-MDS who initiated treatment with ESAs between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019. The primary analysis assessed patient demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes (hematologic response, transfusion requirements, disease progression), and HCRU (medical encounters, laboratory tests, and medication use). Subgroup analyses of patients repeatedly treated with ESA therapy evaluated selected clinical outcomes and primary ESA failure by SF3B1 mutational status, per recently updated NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines©). RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR], 7-33). Median age at ESA initiation was 79 years (IQR, 73-85). Patients were predominantly male (54%), overweight or obese (32% and 23%, respectively), of White race (96%) and non-Hispanic ethnicity (89%). Overall, 57% patients were initially treated with darbepoetin alfa and 43% with epoetin alfa. Clinical outcomes were poor, and there was a significant burden on both the health system and individual patients treated with ESA therapies. Hematologic improvement- erythroid was only seen in 26% of 142 patients treated with ESAs, and 65% of 82 retreated patients experienced primary ESA failure. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that primary ESA failure is largely unrecognized and that many patients should be considered for alternative treatments.

Epidemiology of interstitial lung disease in patients with metastatic breast cancer at baseline and after treatment with HER2-directed therapy: a real-world data analysis.

PURPOSE: Using real-world data, interstitial lung disease (ILD) prevalence before and after HER2-directed therapy was estimated. Potential ILD risk factors in patients receiving HER2-directed therapy for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) were evaluated. METHODS: Adults with HER2-directed therapy for mBC initiated between September 25, 1998, and February 22, 2020 were, included. ILD was defined broadly as one or more of 64 lung conditions. Patients were followed until incident ILD, death, last contact, or study end. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients were identified with median age at mBC of 57, 51% had de novo mBC, 43% were ever smokers, 30% had lung metastases, 9% had thoracic radiation, 6% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 16% had prevalent ILD. ILD cumulative incidence at one year was 9% (95% CI 6%, 12%), with a median follow-up of 23 months. Smoking (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1, 4.8) and Black/African-American race (HR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6, 7.5) were significantly associated with ILD; HRs for preexisting lung conditions (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9, 3.8) and thoracic radiation (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.8, 7.1) were not statistically significant. Prevalent ILD was associated with 13-fold greater occurrence of incident ILD. 85% of patients with prevalent or incident ILD were symptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world population of patients with mBC had a high prevalence of ILD prior to HER2-directed therapy, reflecting the multifactorial causation of interstitial lung changes. The cumulative incidence of ILD in patients receiving HER2-directed therapy for mBC augments prior reports. Symptomatic presentation suggests an opportunity for early intervention.

Rapid real-world data analysis of patients with cancer, with and without COVID-19, across distinct health systems.

BACKGROUND: The understanding of the impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is evolving, with need for rapid analysis. AIMS: This study aims to compare the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with cancer (with and without COVID-19) and characterize the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Real-world data (RWD) from two health systems were used to identify 146 702 adults diagnosed with cancer between 2015 and 2020; 1267 COVID-19 cases were identified between February 1 and July 30, 2020. Demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics were extracted. Incidence of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, and invasive respiratory support was assessed between February 1 and August 14, 2020. Among patients with cancer, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be Non-Hispanic black (NHB), have active cancer, have comorbidities, and/or live in zip codes with median household income <$30 000. Patients with COVID-19 living in lower-income areas and NHB patients were at greatest risk for hospitalization from pneumonia, fluid and electrolyte disorders, cough, respiratory failure, and acute renal failure and were more likely to receive hydroxychloroquine. All-cause mortality, hospital admission, and invasive respiratory support were more frequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Male sex, increasing age, living in zip codes with median household income <$30 000, history of pulmonary circulation disorders, and recent treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy were associated with greater odds of all-cause mortality in multivariable logistic regression models. CONCLUSION: RWD can be rapidly leveraged to understand urgent healthcare challenges. Patients with cancer are more vulnerable to COVID-19 effects, especially in the setting of active cancer and comorbidities, with additional risk observed in NHB patients and those living in zip codes with median household income <$30 000.

COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator: A parallel analysis to describe the use of Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.